J.M.M v S.T.N.M (5647/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 487 (9 May 2025)

J.M.M v S.T.N.M (5647/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 487 (9 May 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant did not demonstrate that another court would come to a different conclusion, nor did the applicant provide compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The court noted that the order was largely conceded and consented to by the applicant’s counsel during oral argument, and that the written reasons previously furnished adequately addressed all issues in dispute. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 487
Parties
Applicant: J.M.M; Respondent: S.T.N.M
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2025
Case Number
5647/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order in Family Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Marx Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act Costs Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.M.M

Applicant

S.T.N.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order in Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the statutory threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether another court would come to a different conclusion on the merits of the original order.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant did not demonstrate that another court would come to a different conclusion, nor did the applicant provide compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The court noted that the order was largely conceded and consented to by the applicant’s counsel during oral argument, and that the written reasons previously furnished adequately addressed all issues in dispute. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application on scale B.